[HN Gopher] 50B birds live on Earth, new study finds
___________________________________________________________________
50B birds live on Earth, new study finds
Author : Breadmaker
Score : 59 points
Date : 2021-05-21 15:16 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.dw.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.dw.com)
| fctorial wrote:
| 26 billion of those are chickens?
| mrweasel wrote:
| That seems really low. There has to be massive areas of the world
| with no birds at all. I mean there is, like the sea, but then
| there are 20 sparrows in my garden.
| acomjean wrote:
| Its only 8 birds per human. I would have thought there were
| more as well.
| lapetitejort wrote:
| There are 3 trillion trees in the world. 60 trees for every
| bird. I guess I can look around and see empty trees, but then
| rarely I see a tree with tens, perhaps hundreds of birds in
| them.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| I guess your neighbour's thinking the same thing about the same
| 20 sparrows.
| m463 wrote:
| especially in comparison to cats-killing-bird numbers
|
| "domestic cats, considered a global invasive species, kill 1.4
| to 3.7 billion birds in the lower 48 states each year"
|
| https://www.audubon.org/news/cats-pose-even-bigger-threat-bi...
|
| https://www.audubon.org/news/how-stop-cats-killing-birds
| popotamonga wrote:
| Not even 10 per person? Sounds low, thought there were more.
| havelhovel wrote:
| For context, the bird population in North America has declined by
| around 3 billion since the 70s: a 30% decrease.
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/silent-skies-bill...
| rblion wrote:
| That number was much higher a few hundred years ago I bet. We've
| wiped out a lot of the biosphere by converting wilderness into
| cities and farms.
| havelhovel wrote:
| North America's wild bird population has declined by 30% since
| the 70s alone, long after once populous species like the
| passenger pigeon were hunted to extinction.
| eevilspock wrote:
| On the other hand, I've read that birds (and rodents) have
| thrived because of humans. We've killed off or limited the
| range of their predators. Many birds do well in cities, and
| unlike ground animals, they aren't stymied by all our roads and
| highways.
|
| So while the number of species of birds is likely much smaller,
| in terms of absolute population there might even be in
| increase.
|
| This is nothing to be proud of though. We might be to the
| planet what the coronavirus is to humans.
| havelhovel wrote:
| Sadly this isn't true either. Some species that coexist with
| humans may be doing better, but they can be counted on one
| hand. North America's bird population is 30% less than it was
| in the 70s.
| tldrthelaw wrote:
| Which makes the fact that the passenger pigeon once number 3-5
| billion individuals in North America all the more staggering.
| Assuming the 50b number has not gone down significantly, it may
| have been that 1 out of every 10 birds _on the planet_ was a
| passenger pigeon.
|
| They say the flocks would black out the sky passing over.
| havelhovel wrote:
| I have read similar accounts of the passenger pigeon and trust
| them to be mostly truthful, at least relative to what we can
| hope to see in the present day. However, as you suggest, the
| 50b number represents bird populations under crisis and does
| not represent their pre-Industrial levels, or even last
| Century's.
| grumple wrote:
| Two points, from the study itself, 50B is their median estimate
| but their mean estimate is 428 billion [1]:
|
| > We calculate that there are likely to be ~50 billion individual
| birds in the world at present: about six birds for every human on
| the planet. This represents the midpoint of our estimates (i.e.,
| the median), albeit with considerable uncertainty (Fig. 2).
| Compared with the median estimate, the mean estimate of the
| aggregated distribution for all birds in the world was ~428
| billion individual birds (Fig. 2). While we provide an estimate
| with a wide highest-density interval, our estimate corresponds
| well with a previous estimate of the number of individual birds
| in the world by Gaston and Blackburn (37), who estimated that
| there were between 200 and 400 billion individual birds in the
| world. Notably, Gaston and Blackburn (37) did not estimate
| species separately but rather extrapolated from small-scale
| density estimates in which all bird species were considered
| equal. We, however, provide data for nearly all the world's bird
| species.
|
| This is a massive disparity in their own estimates, and they
| acknowledge the uncertainty.
|
| As others have noted, they are also not including farmed birds,
| so this is an estimate of birds in nature.
|
| 1. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2023170118
| skynet-9000 wrote:
| Kinda sounds like a question in a FAANG interview.
|
| The referenced study is here:
| https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2023170118
| daniel-levin wrote:
| Presumably not including chickens... broilers only live for 33
| days on average
| peanut_worm wrote:
| I thought the Red-billed quelea was the most abundant bird?
|
| There are about 1.5 billion apparently and they form flocks of 2
| million+
| ShiftPrintBlog wrote:
| Wired had an article last week on "interspecies money" to
| identify and attach monetary value to everything on the planet -
| including birds and trees - to give agency to these actors.
|
| Sounds like this mission will be more difficult :)
|
| Thanks for sharing the article though
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Imagine the suffering that exists in nature at any given moment.
| Billions and trillions of creatures in various states of pain,
| fear, and want. Then multiply all those experiences for every
| time frame back to the first organisms.
|
| I don't think people think about the implications of a billion
| years of natural selection.
| p1mrx wrote:
| Maybe nature wouldn't be so metal if genes could feel pain.
| SllX wrote:
| That's life.
|
| If it's any comfort, life and suffering are temporary.
| fctorial wrote:
| More than half of those are chickens. So it says more about
| artificial selection.
| bugzz wrote:
| Yeah, I think about this. So many small animals die in slow,
| painful ways (naturally - i.e. centipedes eating mice, preying
| mantises eating birds). Makes me wonder if eventually in the
| future there would be some moral prerogative to somehow tame
| the natural world
| redisman wrote:
| Yes let's fuck up nature even more, what could ever go wrong
| nverno wrote:
| Life is just an ongoing chemical reaction. Maybe in the
| future people will start empathizing with metal and feel a
| moral prerogative to stop its oxidation. Larry David may be
| onto something when he asks 'Do you even respect wood!?'
| bugzz wrote:
| I feel like you have to believe at least one of these 3:
|
| 1) Life is just a chemical reaction, human sadness /
| happiness don't matter
|
| 2) Humans are fundamentally different than other animals -
| our pain is somehow more real than animal pain
|
| 3) Animal pain does matter.
|
| Personally I favor 3)
| GuB-42 wrote:
| 2 is pretty deep actually. And for me, that's the one I
| favor (though I don't dismiss 3).
|
| Humans are fundamentally different because that's us. And
| even between humans, there is a scale. To me, the only
| real pain is mine. But, I also have the ability to feel
| other people's pain, so the pain of people close to me is
| also real, but less so, it is indirect. To feel pain for
| a random human requires some active thinking. The further
| we go, the less real pain is, simply because our brain
| can't process and mirror it.
|
| Animals look a bit like us and show similar pain reaction
| so we can emphasize somehow. But for everything after
| plants, we are getting too far. And then, we can
| introduce computers: can an AI feel pain? How advanced
| does it have to be if it does? Maybe it is all programs.
| Unit tests must hurt...
| esotericsean wrote:
| I know you're joking, but...
|
| Isn't rusting metal just metal that's trying to return to
| its natural form?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| There's no reason for calling iron oxide any more natural
| than metal iron.
|
| There's a famous phrase about humans being Nature's tool
| for adding plastics into the world.
| akiselev wrote:
| _> Makes me wonder if eventually in the future there would be
| some moral prerogative to somehow tame the natural world_
|
| That would get at the core of the absolute vs relative
| morality debate and I don't think humanity will ever settle
| on that. It's far more likely that a "Prime Directive"-like
| non-interference law comes into effect instead. The natural
| world is cruel but heavily interdependent; as long as we
| assume that each creature or plant has a right to exist and
| reproduce, all we can do is eliminate our own effects on
| ecosystems. Humans are nature's worst transmission vector for
| pathogens, invasive species, habitat destruction, etc and
| there's little evidence we'd do anything but make the
| suffering a lot worse.
| erhk wrote:
| You're assigning morality to a nervous system which is
| inherently absurd. Corn doesn't feel fear, it doesn't
| lament or suffer it just grows. We don't question the
| morality of capillary action in plants why should we assign
| morality to animal systems? Won't someone think of the
| blood salinity of all living things? Is there not a divine
| optimal amount of salt in all creatures?
|
| Similarly we are foolish to concern ourselves with the
| quantity of serotonin or histamine in any given creature.
|
| Humans are generally social, we developed to be concerned
| with our community rather than our individual survival and
| it has served us well. We developed systems to extend that
| concern to future generations, and sometimes we disguised
| them as deities. Now in our ever blooming quest to
| socialize we are assimilating more species into the fold,
| but at a point we should stop and ask if our moral tools
| are overstepping.
| dheera wrote:
| Earth will be uninhabitable not long into the future on an
| evolutionary timescale. Without action from humans, oceans
| will boil away within 1 billion years due to the increasing
| brightness of the sun, and most life will likely die off
| within about half of that. So in some sense, the suffering of
| animals will not be for much longer compared to history.
|
| Humans will need to either learn to:
|
| - Terraform the Earth and keep it cool -- this can keep the
| Earth habitable for maybe 1-2 billion years at most instead
| of a few hundred million which is the current expectation.
| After that it will be of no use and the sun will eventually
| engulf the Earth in ~4 billion
|
| - Not rely on other species or the oceans to survive, and
| find artificial ways to manufacture food
|
| - Evolve into (i.e. develop) an intelligent but inorganic
| life form that can withstand higher temperatures and carry on
| the legacy of intelligent civilization
|
| - Move to Mars or beyond, terraform it, and take animals with
| us
|
| Considering the complex inter-dependencies of various species
| (e.g. humans need to eat plants, plants need insects and
| worms but their numbers are kept in check by birds, birds
| need huge plants to reproduce, plants also need to eat shit
| from animals, animals need yet other plants to make said
| shit, etc.) I have most hope in creating an inorganic
| lifeform that can reproduce given only light and raw
| materials available on planets, and without dependence on
| other life forms.
| kiba wrote:
| You think way too small, especially on a scale of a billion
| years.
|
| Terraforming our planet is a megaengineering project in
| itself. It's not much of a stretch to imagine
| megaengineering changing the orbit of earth, or increasing
| the lifespan of our star by collecting the gases for later
| use.
|
| You should watch Isaac Arthur the youtube channel.
| cproctor wrote:
| We just need to accelerate the planet a bit and gradually
| expand our orbit.
| eevilspock wrote:
| We haven't even come close to figuring out or even being
| sufficiently empathetic to the suffering _we_ cause, to other
| humans and other creatures. I don 't think those creatures want
| or need our pity with regards to suffering that is inherent to
| life (as well as to joy -- I make a Taoist point there).
|
| The alternative to the suffering (and joy) inherent to advanced
| ( _feeling_ or _conscious_ ) life forms is either a universe
| without advanced life, or very robotic life, or...
|
| Can advanced life evolve, physically or culturally, to a point
| where individuals aren't predominantly selfish? _Selfism is the
| root of all evil._ If you look behind every moral failure or
| myopic human decision, it 's people making very locally
| (tribal/space/time) optimized decisions at the expense of the
| greater and longer term good.
| Tsiklon wrote:
| This is something I think about from time to time, and it
| saddens me deeply.
|
| I don't like to see anything or anyone suffer in pain. And the
| world is full of this - every day hundreds of thousands of
| creatures die horribly due to predation or accident. Many
| unheard, or if heard, ignored.
|
| I think that if you were to describe to a sapient alien what
| pain and suffering is, and then show them the way of things
| here, they would brand this planet Hell; a place of endless
| suffering, and horror in abstract, for all eternity.
|
| Yet that's not all the suffering in the world, I participate in
| this - I tell myself that the cow butchered for the dinner I
| ate tonight was butchered humanely; that it did not suffer in
| death, it was well fed, cared for, was intellectually
| stimulated, enjoyed the company of it's companions.
|
| However, I know this is a convenient lie, one I tell myself to
| mask the truth; the truth is often far from that, the mechanics
| of industrial farming render this vision obsolete, replaced by
| a new horror. No less horrifying than the natural order of
| things, perhaps more so.
|
| Is this world more than the suffering we choose not to see? Of
| course it is. The world is stark, beautiful and full of life.
| The order of nature binding it all together is broadly
| indifferent to suffering and beauty.
|
| I'm only one person, but I'm glad I can think on this, it's a
| luxury the majority of other creatures are not granted.
|
| Edit: I may have let my mind carry me away when writing this
| umvi wrote:
| I don't know, I think billions and trillions of creatures are
| experiencing happiness and joy too. Especially the birds and
| the bees in the springtime.
| amelius wrote:
| Also, greater intelligence and self-awareness brings more
| suffering. A bird only knows pain. A human with a terminal
| illness knows it is dying and suffers the psychological
| consequences.
| [deleted]
| keithwhor wrote:
| Imagine the joy that exists in nature at any given moment.
| Billions and trillions of creatures in various states of
| ecstasy, happiness, and contentment. Then multiply all those
| experiences for every time frame back to the first organisms.
|
| I don't think people think about the implications of a billion
| years of the vast experiences life has to offer.
| dijit wrote:
| That's certainly optimistic.
|
| When I think of nature I think of the horrible dilemmas:
| wolves starving, circling a new mother and her cub.
|
| I think of pestilence, the urgent near insatiable need to
| find food, stave off predators and yet somehow extol endless
| energy to mate.
| etxm wrote:
| You should talk to a therapist.
| dijit wrote:
| It's slightly rude to suggest that I have issues with my
| mental health because I watch nature documentaries.
|
| It does not make me miserable to think of these things,
| it's just life. Life is struggle for the majority of
| living things with brief intermissions of contentedness-
| if you think otherwise you're only kidding yourself
| (although it doesn't harm anyone by living that
| delusion.)
|
| David Attenborough pulls few punches when showing how
| brutal the food chain is. Keeping your kids safe means
| others starve. This goes for plants too, it's
| surprisingly easy to empathise with tragedies that occur
| to other species, including flora and fauna.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't do this here. It does no good and only makes
| threads worse.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRang
| e=a...
| hansjorg wrote:
| The obvious solution to this is to eradicate all life. I don't
| think that's a viable option in the long run.
|
| It can't and shouldn't be our responsibility to end all
| suffering, rather we should take responsibility for the
| suffering we cause.
| ironmagma wrote:
| > The obvious solution to this is to eradicate all life.
|
| That implies that suffering is a problem; IMHO it's just part
| of life and much of what propels us forward. Conversely,
| Heroin is a drug that can eliminate suffering, but it's
| pretty clear from the outside that it does not represent the
| optimal path through existence.
| jeofken wrote:
| Reminds me of how the Buddhist solves the problem of
| suffering by minimising wants, and the Christian by forgiving
| and loving people and the world for their flaws.
| erhk wrote:
| And me by taking a nap.
| pie420 wrote:
| And me by jerking off and crying in a cold shower
| amelius wrote:
| > I don't think that's a viable option in the long run.
|
| That would only start all problems again.
|
| It could be an explanation for the Great Filter though.
| etangent wrote:
| Imagine looking at this from the modern "therapeutic"
| perspective that aims to eliminate suffering -- rather than
| seeing it as integral part of nature and world around us.
| Alternatively: imagine being unhappy that life exists around us
| rather than being happy about it.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| To ease that thought each bird that suffers only suffer for
| itself.
| mlinksva wrote:
| Some people do, eg
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_suffering#Anima...
| and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_animal_suffering
| [deleted]
| Razengan wrote:
| Watching some Journey to the Microcosmos videos, and seeing
| even the tiniest forms of life express struggle and pain has
| fed my personal doubt that this world might be Hell.
|
| Of course there are many moments of joy and pleasure, but
| ultimately it ends in a negative score (all the suffering +
| ultimately dying anyway)
|
| https://youtube.com/c/microcosmos
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| I am not sure what to think of this. Just a quick back of the
| napkin basic math implies that there are about 18,000-22,000
| square feet for every single bird.
| AnonC wrote:
| This study does not seem to consider or count farmed birds, such
| as chickens (and others). Yet it mentions impact on ecology, as
| if farmed animals don't count. Just the farmed birds on earth
| would add up to 25 billion or more.
| erellsworth wrote:
| Well, birds aren't real so...
| Breadmaker wrote:
| https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2023170118
| mips_avatar wrote:
| Interestingly that number is of wild birds. Domesticated chickens
| are an additional 25 billion birds
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/263962/number-of-chicken....
| lsiunsuex wrote:
| This contributes to a thought I had years ago. We used to smoke
| in the parking lot; a co-worker would feed the birds that came
| daily - contrary to fight club, feeding birds around a parking
| lot of cars does not cause the birds to poop on the cars lol
|
| Anyway - I always wondered - how many birds are in the world?
| Then walk down the street, around town, where ever - how many
| dead birds do you see on the side of the road? 1 every once in a
| great while maybe?
|
| Where do birds go to die? Or are they just eaten right away by
| their prey? Stray cats? Hawks?
| lapetitejort wrote:
| I've seen dead animals dissolve into nothing over the course of
| a few days. So many things feast on even the smallest of
| corpses. Nature recycles itself quickly.
| hzay wrote:
| We started feeding pigeons at our 8th floor apartment in india.
| Above us is just sky where lots of Kites circle. Over time, the
| pigeons decided our house is their... hospital? They'd show up
| here when sick. We'd leave food and water out for them, but
| they were often too sick to eat or drink. Sometimes they'd
| recover and fly away, but other times they just sit and wait
| for death (usually 2-3 days). Some corners of the terrace
| provide shelter from cats that hunt in the apartments so that
| could be why they choose this place.
|
| Anyway in the last year, I have seen 4 pigeons die here (one
| eaten by cat). I think birds of prey or cats get to a lot of
| dying birds first, so we don't often see them. Even when the
| birds do die a non-violent death, they seem to be able to
| choose their spot for dying.
| [deleted]
| oblak wrote:
| > Where do birds go to die? Or are they just eaten right away
| by their prey? Stray cats? Hawks?
|
| I can distinctly remember seeing a pigeon nose dive mid flight
| at ~25m height right in front of me. It... just fell.
|
| Still one of the weirdest things I've ever seen. To top it all,
| a stray cat caught it in literally less than a second after
| hitting the ground. Not sure if that was nature or someone shot
| the poor thing with an air gun or something.
| p1mrx wrote:
| Where do the rest live?
| joecool1029 wrote:
| Presumably above the Earth or in the case of burrowing birds,
| in the Earth.
| glup wrote:
| Exoornithologists disagree.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-21 23:02 UTC)